TOURISM FUNCTION OF MAZOVIA VOIVODSHIP
Ewa Szyma ska
Warsaw University of Life Sciences SGGW
Abstract. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview over theoretical background of tourism function issue and to analyze its spatial composition in the counties of Mazovia region. Firstly, the author discusses the theory of tourism function and indicates some barriers involving its measurement. Secondly, tourism function has been analyzed by using partial indexes referring to tourism movement, tourism features and tourism values in the researched counties. Then, synthetic tourism function index has been calculated and analyzed and nally, the relation between tourism intensity and natural and anthropological resources have been researched.
Key words: tourism, tourism function index
INTRODUCTION
Tourism is a phenomenon which can not be closed in the administrative units. Tourist space is necessary connected with natural values and tourism infrastructure, what usually do not coincides with administrative borders. Therefore, the concept of tourism func-tion included in administrative unit is somewhat arti cial. However, in order to research tourism intensity, tourism function or other tourism issues, there is a need for statistical conceptualization, which allows illustrating its spatial differentiation on the national or regional level. For the need of the research analyzed in this paper, the tourism function has been researched on the level of counties of Mazovia region (one of the 16 voivodships in Poland).
The aim of the paper is to provide an overview over theoretical background of tourism function and to analyze its spatial distribution in Mazovia region. The data on tourists and accommodation, which have been used for the analyses, have been taken from the cat-egory Tourism multiply accommodation objects of Main Statistical Of ce (GUS) local date base. Tourist service has been phrased in the amount of enterprises in section I Accommodation and Gastronomic Activities (according to Statistical Classi cation of
Corresponding address adres do korespondencji: Ewa Szyma ska, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Nowoursynowska 166, 02-787, Warsaw, Poland, ewa_szymanska@sggw.pl
Products by Activity in the European Economic Community, 2008 version). The needed data derives from the category Economic entities of GUS Local Date Base. Data refer-ring natural and anthropological values were taken form the category Environmental Protection and Forestry of GUS Lokal Data Base as well as form the data base of The National Heritage Board of Poland. All data come from the year 2009.
TOURISM FUNCTION THEORY
In the literature two approaches to the tourism function issue can be distinguished. The rst one is the classical approach (narrow one), which refers to economic meaning of tourism function. Warszy ska and Jackowski [1979] describe areas with tourism function as territorial units in which tourism plays a dominating role in its economy. The same as areas with industrial or agricultural function, there are areas with signi -cant tourism function, which can be described as tourist regions [Derek 2008]. Matczak [1989] or Kurek and Mika [2007] express tourism function as socio-economic activity of an area which is directed into tourism services. Another example is an approach pro-posed by Baretje and Defert [1972] that claim that areas with tourism function can be considered as territorial units where employment in tourism business constitutes more then 50% of the total employment [Cooper 2009]. However, such a approach is con-nected with dif culties concerning the measures. First of all, it is complicated to sepa-rate employment in trade and services directed only to tourists from the one directed to the residents. Secondly, the precise statistical data in this aspect are very limited. Though, oversimplifying this concept in polish conditions, the tourism function can be evaluate by comparing the employment in section I Accommodation and Food Serv-ice (according to PKD classi cation) to the total employment in the researched area. More applicable is approach proposed by Defert [1967] which refers tourism function to number of beds per capita. Some authors take into account also the numbers of tour-ists according to the number of residents or an area [Derek 2008].
The second approach to the tourism function theory is new (broad) one, which as-sumes that evaluation of tourism function of an area has to be more complex. Except of socio-economic aspect, the others factors like tourism infrastructure, tourism movement or tourism values are relevant. This approach re ects fully the character of tourism func-tion issue. Derek [2008] underlines the fact that tourism funcfunc-tion is developed only when each of three factors are highlighted, what illustrates Figure 1.
Fischbach [1989] claims, that by evaluating tourism function of an area even more aspects has to be considered and names seven groups of factors: tourism values, tour-ism infrastructure, communication availability, tourtour-ism movement (scale and structure), land use, incomes coming from tourism sector, and employment (scale and structure).
Summing up, it can be ascertain that the area with fully developed tourism function is an area distinguished by tourism values and infrastructure and re ecting relative high tourism movement.
TOURISM FUNCTION INDEXES
The most popular way to measure spatial variation of tourism function is to examine the distribution of accommodation and the scale of tourism movement. Examining the distribution of accommodation capacity according to population or an area is not only because hotels and another related establishments are highly visible on the landscape but also because countries are more likely to collect statistical data on it than any other ele-ment of tourism supply [Pearce 1996]. However, although tourism accommodation and movement gives a useful indication of where tourism plays a signi cant role, absolute value do not necessarily re ect the importance of tourism within a region. The big urban centers may have a greater number of accommodation units and tourist visits than small towns or some peripheral areas, which in absolute terms would mean that tourist function of the large cities, is higher than of other areas but in reality it may not be so. Big cities may perform other urban functions which are more dominant than its tourism function. On the other hand, peripheral areas or small cities may be more dependants on tourism and may perform signi cant tourist functions. Therefore, the absolute values on accom-modation and tourist visits are sometimes misleading and can give a wrong visual impres-sion of the importance of tourism in a region.
In order to evaluate the relative importance of tourism in territorial units, the use of accommodation data is a logical one because the stay away from ones normal place of residence is one of the de ning characteristics of tourism. To demonstrate different ways of analyzing and visualizing the spatial aspects of tourism at the various Nomenclature Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) levels some indexes were developed. Among the several methods proposed by researchers to measure the relative importance of tourism, the one that is the most popular is Deferts tourist function index (TFI). Defert [1966]
in-TF
Tourism values Tourism movement Tourism infrastructureFig. 1. Tourism function Rys. 1. Funkcja turystyczna Source: Derek [2008].
troduced TFI which is derived by comparing the number of bed available to tourists with resident population of the researched area. In this case tourist density is measured.
The Tourism Function Index is calculated: TFI = (N · 100)/P
where: N = number of bed spaces and P is the population.
However, Boniface and Cooper [2009] pay attention to the fact that Deferts tourism function index works good as a measure for holiday resorts but it underestimates the impact of tourism in cities with a large resident population, or in historic towns that at-tract large numbers of day visitors [Cooper 2009]. Also, it is important to underline that while TFI used to compare variations in accommodation density between regions within the same country is very meaningful, at the international level, though, can be mislead-ing because of the differences in de nitions and registration requirements among the countries.
Tourism function can be also measured by searching tourism intensity expressed by the quotient of the number of tourists to the local population (Scheiders index) or, pro-posed by Defert, to an area in km2 (Deferts index). Another approach described in the literature is Charvats index which examines the amount of beds according to an area. Coccossinis and Parparis [2000] describes some indexes which are less used namely: tourist comfort index based on a formula which distinguishes the quality between differ-ent types of accommodation using certain criteria, the concdiffer-entration index which is an attempt to determine the degree of concentration of tourist activity as well as the attrac-tiveness index, derived by comparing the number of bed nights between international and domestic tourists. Attractiveness index can be used in order to evaluate a regions pro le in attracting speci c types of tourism overall or by category.
For the purpose of evaluating spatial diversi cation of tourism function in Mazovia region the complex approach has been used. The tourism function has been researched in three aspects: tourism features, tourism movement and tourism values.
Two variables have been speci ed in order to evaluate tourist movement in the re-searched region, namely number of guests staying overnight per 100 inhabitants (Schnei-ders index) and number of guests per km2 (Deferts index).
Variables examining tourism features have been divided in two groups: beds and tour-ism services. The amount of beds is referred to an area in km2 (Charvats index) and to 100 inhabitants (TFI) Tourist services are phrased in the amount of enterprises in section I and in the share of this objects in the total number of enterprises in the county.
While examining tourism features of some area, it is important to take into account environmental factors, which give physical and mental relaxation of tourists and anthro-pogenic ones, such as monuments of history, cultural heritage, collections of art but also sports centers, events, etc. However, while in case of towns cultural heritage, collections of art, sports centers, events are the most important, in peripheral areas environmental factors attracts tourists the most. Because of limited statistical data the natural values in this paper have been speci ed by percentage of an area protected by law and percentage of forests in the county. Anthropogenic values have been described by number of sites registered as historic monuments per area unit. The Table 1 shows the schema of variables used for the purpose of research.
Table 1. Variables for tourism function evaluation
Tabela 1. Zmienne tworz ce wska nik poziomu rozwoju funkcji turystycznej
Speci cation Variable Data
source Tourist
movement Guests
Number of guests staying overnight/100 inhabitants
GUS Number of guests staying overnight/km2
Tourism features
Beds Number of beds/km
2
GUS Number of beds/all inhabitants · 100
Tourist services in the county
Number of companies registered in section I Number of companies
registered in section I/number of all companies
Tourism values
Natural values Percentage of area in the county protected by law GUS Percentage of forests
Anthropogenic
values Number of sites registered as historic monuments per area unit KOBiDZ Source: Own elaboration based on Derek [2008].
ród o: Opracowanie w asne na podstawie Derek [2008].
RESULTS
The analyses of tourist movement and tourism features in the counties of Mazovia region delivered the following ndings. Three counties shows Schneiders index higher than average for Poland namely Warsaw, Legionowski and Warsaw West poviat. Rela-tive high index has also Pruszkowski poviat, whereas the lowest values show: Ostro cki (0), Zwole ski (0) and Lipski poviat. Looking at the number of tourists according to km2 (Deferts index), the highest values, much above the national average, appear in the poviats: Warsaw, Siedlce, Radom, Ostro ka, Pruszkowski, P ock, and Legionowski. These are mainly towns with big population or poviats situated near Warsaw. The lowest Deferts index appears again in the counties: Ostro cki (0), Zwole ski (0), Lipski and
uromi ski.
Analysing he number of beds per km2 it can be observed that Warsaw, Siedlce, Ra-dom, Ostro ka, P ock, Legionowski and Pruszkowski have higher values then average, where Warsaw is de nitely a leader. Generally, Deferts index is connected with relative high number of beds. However, sometimes poviats show insuf cient use of existing ac-commodation units (e.g. W growski). Meanwhile the highest rate of beds according to 100 inhabitants (TFI) has osicki and Legionowski poviat. The lowest values in this two, referring accommodation, groups can be observed in Ostro cki (0), uromi ski (0), Przasnyski, yrardowski.
Examining the amount of tourism enterprises per 1000 inhabitants it can be observed that poviats: Warsaw, Legionowski, Warsaw West and Piaseczy ski are in front ranks. However, taking into account the average for Poland, the share of these companies in the all enterprises in the poviat is not meaningful. It indicates the fact, that Mazovia shows low scale of tourism companies in compression to other polish regions. The lowest
num-bers of companies in section I show Ostro cki, Siedlecki, W growski, and uromi ski poviats. The above discussed results have been shown in the Table 2.
The analyses of natural and anthropological values of researched poviats have brought to the following conclusions (Table 3). The poviats with the highest % of forest are Wysz-kowski, Szyd owiecki, Kozienicki, Legionowski, Ostro cki. The highest % share of pro-tected areas show Otwocki, Legionowski, uromi ski and yrardowski, while the lowest have Ostro ka, Makowski, Ostro cki, and Wyszkowski poviat. Referring to the number of protected monuments per 100 km2, the highest value re ect Warsaw, Radom, P ock, Siedlce.
Table 2. Tourism movement and features indexes for the poviats in Mazovia Voivodship
Tabela 2. Wska niki ruchu i zagospodarowania turystycznego dla powiatów województwa mazowieckiego
No. Poviat
Tourist movement Tourist features
Schneiders index Deferts index Charvats index TFI Enterprises in section I/1000 inhabitants Enterprises in section I/total enterprises 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Bia obrzeski 9.792 5.157 0.131 0.249 2.197 0.029 2 Ciechanowski 14.971 12.759 0.555 0.651 1.269 0.017 3 Garwoli ski 13.355 11.119 0.666 0.8 1.084 0.017 4 Gostyni ski 11.334 8.613 0.302 0.397 1.432 0.021 5 Grodziski 18.012 40.221 0.785 0.351 2.795 0.022 6 Grójecki 20.357 15.556 0.289 0.378 3.156 0.037 7 Kozienicki 11.120 7.444 0.461 0.689 1.906 0.029 8 Legionowski 96.109 246.521 4.452 1.736 3.780 0.027 9 Lipski 0.987 0.481 0.026 0.054 1.426 0.020 10 osicki 25.219 10.561 1.636 3.907 1.082 0.017 11 Makowski 2.637 1.149 0.067 0.155 1.530 0.020 12 Mi ski 13.313 16.440 0.551 0.446 1.794 0.024 13 M awski 9.632 5.962 0.172 0.278 1.448 0.021 14 Nowodworski 15.1597 16.755 0.507 0.459 1.778 0.022 15 Ostro cki 0 0 0 0 0.994 0.020 16 Ostrowski 19.279 11.818 0.296 0.483 1.807 0.021 17 Otwocki 23.343 45.391 1.032 0.53 2.441 0.0231 18 Piaseczy ski 26.559 67.309 1.803 0.711 3.449 0.021 19 P ocki 19.069 11.477 0.48 0.798 1.265 0.044 20 P o ski 13.317 8.429 0.125 0.197 1.427 0.023
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 21 Powiat m. Ostro ka 28.646 528.758 6.137 0.3323 3.437 0.022 22 Powiat m. P ock 20.093 285.702 6.881 0.4839 2.427 0.032 23 Powiat m. Radom 18.537 370.420 7.441 0.372 2.564 0.022 24 Powiat m. Siedlce 23.881 571.908 21.782 0.909 2.346 0.022 25 Powiat m.st. Warszawa 122.945 4080.881 44.3 1.334 4.532 0.023 26 Pruszkowski 44.143 269.315 3.99 0.654 3.580 0.022 27 Przasnyski 2.480 1.075 0.015 0.035 1.155 0.018 28 Przysuski 11.774 6.362 0.38 0.704 1.271 0.021 29 Pu tuski 28.031 17.245 0.324 0.527 2.196 0.0297 30 Radomski 8.582 8.258 0.318 0.33 1.127 0.017 31 Siedlecki 3.819 1.931 0.072 0.143 0.752 0.013 32 Sierpecki 5.835 3.662 0.252 0.401 1.008 0.0181 33 Sochaczewski 9.825 11.280 0.235 0.204 2.406 0.024 34 Soko owski 2.310 1.145 0.068 0.137 1.069 0.0174 35 Szyd owiecki 28.337 25.180 0.506 0.569 1.294 0.019 36 Warszawski Zachodni 51.680 101.990 2.626 0.547 3.831 0.028 37 W growski 13.140 7.226 1.339 0.678 0.879 0.014 38 Wo omi ski 6.0632 13.519 0.387 0.705 2.793 0.025 39 Wyszkowski 20.657 17.041 0.553 0.248 1.701 0.021 40 Zwole ski 0 0 0.46 0.558 1.074 0.021 41 uromi ski 1.358 0.679 0 0 0.943 0.015 42 yrardowski 17.219 24.379 0.009 0.019 2.625 0.024
43 Average for Poland 50.316 61.895 1.939 1.576 3.079 3.079 Source: Own elaboration based on the CSO Local Data Base (2009).
ród o: Opracowanie w asne na podstawie Bazy Danych Lokalnych GUS (2009).
Synthetic tourism function index has been calculated as the arithmetic mean of stand-ardized all 9 variables, by mean = 100 and standard deviation = 15. The results show that poviats counties with the highest indexes are: Warsaw (146), Legionowski (115) P ock (111), Radom (108), Siedlce (108), Warszawski Zachodni (108), Ostro ka (104), osicki (104) and the poviats with the lowest indexes are: Zwole ski (93), Lipski (93), Sierpecki (92), Siedlecki (90), uromi ski (90).
Analyzing the correlation between synthetic index of tourism movement and features and tourism values it can be observed that they are only mildly related.
The natural values separately show even lower correlation, whereas the number of anthropological values is more related with tourism movement and infrastructure (Table 4).
Table 2 cont. cd. tabeli 2
Table 3. Tourism values in the poviats of Mazovia Voivodship
Tabela 3. Wska niki walorów turystycznych dla powiatów województwa mazowieckiego No. Poviat % of forest % of protected areas Number of monuments/100 km2
1 2 3 4 5 1 Bia obrzeski 25.1 54.781 5.320 2 Ciechanowski 16 37.393 8.396 3 Garwoli ski 29.7 36.770 4.280 4 Gostyni ski 22.4 42.852 6.341 5 Grodziski 11.7 23.520 26.158 6 Grójecki 13.1 22.941 10.094 7 Kozienicki 30.2 11.414 4.803 8 Legionowski 30.1 72.131 9.743 9 Lipski 17.2 20.389 5.405 10 osicki 21.3 23.517 7.253 11 Makowski 25.2 0.966 3.286 12 Mi ski 21.1 29.813 7.474 13 M awski 19.2 50.219 42.857 14 Nowodworski 26.1 61.030 6.474 15 Ostro cki 30.9 0.449 2.479 16 Ostrowski 27.9 1.059 5.747 17 Otwocki 29.8 78.108 9.902 18 Piaseczy ski 18.1 52.474 25.281 19 P ocki 17.1 33.520 6.625 20 P o ski 13.4 35.563 6.884 21 Powiat m. Ostro ka 8.7 0 89.655 22 Powiat m. P ock 4.8 22.677 187.5 23 Powiat m. Radom 6.4 2.254 172.321 24 Powiat m. Siedlce 6.6 13.433 96.875 25 Powiat m.st. Warszawa 14.3 23.259 251.450 26 Pruszkowski 10.7 34.874 23.577 27 Przasnyski 29.3 3.222 4.265 28 Przysuski 30.7 40.160 4.619 29 Pu tuski 18.9 16.853 7.980 30 Radomski 25 21.619 6.209 31 Siedlecki 18.3 24.466 4.678 32 Sierpecki 13.5 49.978 6.690 33 Sochaczewski 14.7 34.4874 11.292 34 Soko owski 23.4 40.928 4.332
1 2 3 4 5 35 Szyd owiecki 31.8 39.014 5.752 36 Warszawski Zachodni 25.1 46.892 10.299 37 W growski 27 38.036 5.173 38 Wo omi ski 29.3 20.901 5.136 39 Wyszkowski 33 0.095 5.365 40 Zwole ski 14.9 11.054 5.061 41 uromi skiski 20.4 74.079 2.973 42 yrardowski 22.6 60.758 42.401
43 Avarage for Poland 29 32.31 20.251
Source: Own elaboration on the base of the CSO Local Data Base and The National Heritage Board data base.
ród o: Opracowanie w asne na podstawie Bazy Danych Lokalnych GUS i bazy danych Narodowego Insty-tutu Dziedzictwa.
Table 4. Correlation between tourism function indexes Tabela 4. Korelacja mi dzy wska nikami funkcji turystycznej
Tourism movement, features <-> tourism values (natural and anthropological)
Tourism movement, features <-> natural tourism values
Tourism movement, features <-> anthropological
tourism values Pearsons
coef cient 0.637 0.432 0.657
Source: Authors elaboration. ród o: Opracowanie w asne.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn from this research:
Spatial composition of tourism function in Mazovia region is much differentiated. There are high disparities between development of tourism in Warsaw agglomeration, towns and peripheral areas.
Despite of valuable natural resources peripheral poviats are very backward referring to tourism development and show insuf cient use of existing accommodation. Tourism function in Warsaw agglomeration and towns shows correlation with anthro-pological advantages, while natural values do not relevantly affect the level of tourism function.
Mazovia region shows low scale of tourism companies in compression to other polish regions.
The research of tourism function issue is limited because of not suf cient availability of certain statistical data.
Table 3 cont. cd. tabeli 3REFERENCES
Coccossinis H., Parparis A., 2000. Tourism and the Environment. Kluwer Academic Publisher, The Netherlands, 100101.
Cooper Ch., Boniface B., 2009. Worldwide Destinations: The Geography of Travel and Tourism. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Derek M., 2008. Funkcja turystyczna jako czynnik rozwoju lokalnego w Polsce, Rozprawa doktor-ska, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Warszawa.
ESPON European Observation Network, 2006. Preparatory Study of Spatially Relevant Aspects of Tourism: Final Report.
Liszewski S., 2007. Geogra a turyzmu w Polsce i jej wk ad w rozwój nauk o turystyce, [w:] W. Kurek, M. Mika, red., Studia nad turystyk . Tradycje, stan obecny i perspektywy badawcze, Instytut Geogra i i Gospodarki Przestrzennej Uniwersytetu Jagiello skiego, Kraków, 6176.
Matczak A., 2007. Województwa o funkcji turystycznej a obszary o ska onym rodowisku geogra- cznym w Polsce. Turyzm t. 5, z. 1.
Pearce P., Moscardo M., 1996. Tourism community relationships. Pergamon Press, Oxford. So owiej D., 1992. Wery kacja ocen integralnych atrakcyjno ci rodowiska przyrodniczego
cz owieka w wybranych systemach rekreacyjnych. Wyd. Uniwersytetu im. A. Mickie-wicza w Poznaniu, Pozna .
Warszy ska J., Jackowski A., 1978. Podstawy geogra i turyzmu. PWN, Warszawa.
FUNKCJA TURYSTYCZNA WOJEWÓDZTWA MAZOWIECKIEGO
Streszczenie. Celem artyku u jest przedstawienie oraz próba analizy przestrzennego zró nicowania funkcji turystycznej w powiatach województwa mazowieckiego. W celu okre lenia funkcji turystycznej obliczono i zbadano wska niki cz stkowe odnosz ce si do ruchu turystycznego, zagospodarowania turystycznego oraz naturalnych i antropo-genicznych walorów turystycznych. W dalszej kolejno ci na podstawie skonstruowanego wska nika syntetycznego zbadano zale no mi dzy ruchem turystycznym a walorami tu-rystycznymi.
S owa kluczowe: turystyka, funkcja turystyczna
